Ausgrenzung (BD2015)
Exzerpte aus Ruben Zaiotti: Cultures of Border Control Schengen and the Evolution of European Frontiers Chicago and London 2011
S. 72
The Schengen conventions redefined the traditional meaning of borders. Two new categories were created: “internal” and “external” borders. The Implementation Convention referred to “internal borders” as “the common land borders of the [Schengen States], their airports for internal flights and their ports for regular ferry connections exclusively from and to other ports within the territories of the [Schengen States] and not calling at any ports outside these territories” (art. 1 SIC). “External borders” were classified as Schengen states’ “land and sea borders and their airports and sea ports, provided that they are not internal borders” (ibid.). This “negative” definition of external borders was an attempt to avoid the sensitive issue of who should be legally responsible for their management. The formal distinction between “internal” and “external” was thus presented as neutral. Indeed, in this formulation both internal and external borders still coincided with national borders. Their creation did not entail any boundary redrawing. Yet, if we go beyond legal formalities, we can see that Schengen outlined a novel way to conceptualize borders. The external border marked the perimeter of a new area comprising the territory of all member states. It was therefore superimposed on national borders and represented a distinct entity with unique features. Internal borders were “subordinate” to their external counterparts (the former was a prerequisite of the latter, but not the other way around). Internal and external borders were also considered a common good. When it is explicitly applied to internal borders, the term “common” seems to refer to the territorial line that two countries share; however, if we look at the equivalent term used for the external border of the Schengen area, it is clear that the term has a collective connotation. The border belongs to all countries in the Schengen area. Indeed, each country needs to take into account the interests of all contracting parties when conducing controls at the external borders (art. 6.1 SIC).
The Schengen conventions redefined not only the meaning of European borders but also their functions. Article 2.1 of the Schengen Agreement stipulates the de facto abolition of controls at internal borders. The function of “filter” played by borders does not disappear, however. The agreement transfers it to the external perimeter of the Schengen area (art. 17). The link between the abolition of internal border controls and their relocation to the external perimeter is deemed necessary. The logic is that of the “security deficit”: the abolition of controls inevitably creates a vacuum that needs to be constantly filled.
With the creation of a common external perimeter, controls would not only be transferred but also reinforced. At one level, this is the indirect result of policy harmonization that the establishment of a new regime entails. For example, when deciding on the applicable rules for admission of a person, what applies is the accumulation of rules (i.e., in the absence of common rules, a person must meet the requirements of all states to enter Schengen). At another level, it is a conscious policy choice. In response to the removal of common frontiers, the texts in fact envisaged a hardening of borders through the introduction of new security measures at the external borders (and sometimes even internal borders)
S. 77
Was Schengen really a laboratory for the European project? There are contrasting opinions amongst practitioners and scholars. For some, Schengen was a dangerous development for the EU. Commissioner Martin Bangemann went so far as to argue that Schengen was a potential “graveyard instead of a laboratory for the EC” (quoted in Wiener 1998: 241). The European Parliament was strenuously against it and criticized the Commission for its complacent position. Its main concerns over Schengen were its undemocratic nature and its effect on immigrants and asylum seekers. On various occasions it threatened to initiate legal action against the Commission for its stance on Schengen. Among the few national voices participating in the debate, the Dutch Council of State expressed similar concerns. In its analysis of the legal implications of Schengen, the council argued that Schengen’s entry into force “might have an inhibiting effect on the realization of the Community proposal.”20 Other commentators accepted that Schengen was a laboratory, although not necessarily for the EU. Julian Schutte, a member of the Dutch delegation during the negotiation over the Schengen Implementation Convention, contended that the promoters of Schengen envisioned a scenario in which the EC followed in Schengen’s footsteps, and not the other way around.21 This would also explain the late and reluctant inclusion of the reference to the Community element in the Schengen Implementation Convention.
No matter what the reasons for the various actors’ stances, the laboratory metaphor nonetheless had the effect of conferring a degree of legitimacy on Schengen. According to Bigo and Guild (2003) the discourse about Schengen as laboratory became so powerful that few dared to move away from it or officially challenge it. It thus acquired the force of “myth.” All actors involved converged on the fact that Schengen, despite its questionable origins, was a project they should all embrace.
Exzerpt aus Evelein Brouwer: Digital Borders and Real Rights. Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy in Europe. Leiden, Boston 2008
Exzerpt aus Dennis Broeders: Breaking Down Anonymity. Digital Surveillance of Irregular Migrants in Germany and the Netherlands. Amsterdam University Press 2009
S. 27
‘The border is everywhere,’ wrote Lyon in 2005. We are accustomed to think of the border in terms of territorial lines dividing the world into countries. While these traditional territorial lines originate in politicolegal international agreements (often codifying the outcomes of war and civil strife), they have also been translated into legal documentary requirements, which, in turn have been translated into prerequisites for rights, obligations and entitlements for those ‘belonging’ to a specific side of those ‘territorial’ lines. In other words, the border has been translated into a myriad of smaller belongings and memberships that in everyday life determine rights and limitations. And if the border is everywhere, than logic dictates that it can also crossed – legally and illegally – everywhere.
S. 157f
From the perspective of internal migration control, the defining characteristic of an irregular migrant is his irregular residence. Irregular residence, however, does not presuppose irregular entry. There are three basic categories of irregular migrants: those who enter and stay illegally (the irregular migrant ‘proper’), those who apply for asylum
and become irregular after their application is rejected and those who travel to the EU on a legal visa and become irregular its validity expires. These migration histories lay at the base of the development of the EU migration databases and their use for the exclusion of irregular migrants.
...
The main function of these systems in migration control is primarily linked to the external borders of the EU – the geographical borders and the access to legal procedures for asylum and visa – and therefore to external migration control. For the internal migration control, the main contribution of these systems can be expected in the support and instrumentalisation of the second logic of exclusion: that of exclusion through documentation and registration. The EU-wide scale of these systems that will document and register important legal migration flows into all of the member states brings the level of ‘identity management’ (Muller 2004) through database technology to a whole new level. Documenting identities and itineraries can be used for internal migration control as it may provide links to the missing information that frustrates national level expulsion policies. When these systems become operational in the context of the fight against illegal migration and especially in the internal control on irregular migrants they should become vital tools for the exclusion through registration, as their principal function is to re-identify irregular migrants (Broeders 2007).
